The Company has informed the Bank that, following prolonged negotiations, the Municipality of Hod Hasharon stated its position that it is not obligated towards the Company and that it retains all rights in the matter, and that further has claims against the Company amounting to some NIS 4 Million (approximately $900,000). In light of the position taken by counsel to the Municipality, the Company informed the Bank that bringing legal action is unavoidable, and that in the opinion of the Company remains the only course of action that may result in the recovery of the funds due to it.
Therefore, the Company was of the opinion that it would be proper that the Bank join the Company in bringing such suit and share in its expense. The Bank has yet to formally respond to the Company's suggestion, although it has learned from counsel to the Bank that it is reluctant to join the suit, but may be willing to share some of the expenses involved. The Company is of the opinion that the Bank's position is detrimental to the Company's efforts.
1. Following the agreement with the Bank, on June 30, 2001 an agreement was signed between Mr. Strikovsky and the Company pursuant to which Strikovsky agreed to reimburse the Company for an amount of US$ 954,000, and any additional amount that the Company may have to pay to the Bank if the Bank exercises the guarantee related to the debt of Hod Hasharon. The reimbursement amount of $954,000 is due and payable to the Company and is required to be paid in monthly installments of $48,000 commencing on June 1, 2004, until paid in full. All amounts due and payable to the Company are linked to the Israeli Consumer Price Index and bear interest of 4% per annum. The reimbursement amount of $954,000 was not yet recognized as the probability of its realization is in doubt.
2. In connection with the Stav/Marnetics transaction, and pursuant to an amendment to the share exchange agreement, Mr. Strikovsky granted an indemnification to the former shareholders of Marnetics Ltd. against certain losses or damages related to the Electrical Business and deposited 200,000 shares of the Company held by him in escrow as security for his indemnification obligations.
3. During the audit of the financial statements of Stav Electrical Systems (1994) Ltd. for the year ended December 31, 2000, it was discovered that excess advances were paid to certain suppliers in the amount of $0.5 million. On June 30, 2001, Mr. Strikovsky, the Company and the former shareholders of Marnetics Ltd. entered into a separate indemnification agreement that further defined, clarified and expanded the terms of the initial indemnification, added indemnification obligations related to the bank debt assignment (as described above), and provided for an additional 100,000 shares of the Company held by Mr. Strikovsky to be held in escrow as security for such indemnification obligations. Under this indemnification agreement, Mr. Strikovsky agreed to:
4. The Company, under its former name, and Mr. Dov Strikovsky were named as co-defendants in a claim for specific performance of an agreement allegedly entered into by the Company and the plaintiff, Ananda Capital Partners, Inc., in April 1999, as well as for damages as a result of a breach of the agreement (see "Legal Proceedings" below). On December 5, 2001, Mr. Dov Strikovsky gave an undertaking to indemnify the Company for all legal fees, expenses and court costs arising out or in connection with this claim.
Loans to Significant Shareholder and Former Director and Officer
The Company has, from time-to-time, made loans to Dov Strikovsky during the period of time he was Chairman of the Board of Directors, President, and Chief Executive Officer of the Company. At December 31, 1997, 1998, and 1999 the amount of such loans outstanding was US $1,151,000, US $1,443,000 and US $1,570,000 respectively. Such loans did not bear interest through December 31, 1997 (such loans are currently linked to the Israeli Consumer Price Index and bear interest at the rate per annum equal to LIBOR plus 2 %). In addition, during 1999 and 2000, the Company inadvertently made excess advances to Mr. Strikovsky. Upon discovery of this error, Mr. Strikovsky started to repay to the Company the amount of such excess advances.
In preparation for its initial public offering, in April 1998, the Company entered into an agreement with Mr. Strikovsky which provided that he would pay interest only on such loans through October 1, 1998 and will amortize the principal amount, and pay interest thereon, commencing on January 1, 2000 and terminating on December 31, 2003. In September 1998, such agreement was superceded by an agreement pursuant to which Mr. Strikovsky agreed to repay such loans together with the interest thereon, on or prior to November 25, 2000, subject to extension in the sole discretion of the disinterested members of the Board of Directors of the Company. Mr. Strikovsky applied the net proceeds of the sale in the Company's initial public offering of a number of his Ordinary Shares, approximately US $522,000, and also agreed to apply 50% of all dividends paid, net of taxes, on the Ordinary Shares owned by him to the prepayment of such loans. Pursuant to the September 1998 agreement, in 1999, the disinterested members of the Company's Board of Directors voted to extend the repayment terms of the net loan. The loan is currently payable in eight annual installments, which commenced in December 31, 2000 and shall be repaid in full by December 31, 2007. Payment was made by way of applying Mr. Strikovsky's net proceeds of the sale of his shares in the Company's initial public offering in the amount of $522,000. In September 1999, a dividend was paid to Mr. Strikovsky in the sum of $90,000, and he applied half of this amount, $45,000, towards repayment of the loans.
During August and September 2002 Mr. Strikovsky paid the Company a sum of $225,000. This amount was credited first against the balance of its currents account in the sum of $87,000 and the sum of $138,000 was credited against the balance due of the loan.
Mr. Strikovsky did not make further payments towards this loan. The balance due of the loan is $134,000. The Company notified Mr. Strikovsky of his default and conducted ongoing negotiation with Mr. Strikovsky in this matter, without result.
In December 31, 2001 the Company reassessed the collectability of the net loan, in the amount of $1,228,000 granted to Mr. Strikovsky in previous years, in accordance with provisions of SFAS No. 114 "Accounting by Creditors for Impairment of a Loan", and resolved, considering the probability of its collectability, to establish a loan loss allowance for the entire amount. Income from impaired loan will be recorded using the cash method.
On September 10, 2003, the Company filed suit against Mr. Strikovsky and others for, among other things, his default under the loan extended to him by the Company (see"Legal Proceedings"below).
Inter Company Loan Agreement
During September 2002 the Company signed a loan agreement with Marnetics Ltd, a fully owned subsidiary of the Company, pursuant to which Marnetics Ltd. will grant the Company a loan of up to $500,000. The principal of the loan will be linked to the changes in the Israeli Consumer Price Index. Interest will accrue at 4% per annum. The loan will be paid until December 31, 2005. In order to secure the repayment of the loan, the Company agreed to pledge in favor of Marnetics Ltd. the amounts that will be collected from the account of the "Loans to Significant Shareholder and Former Director and Officer" in the amount of $1,228,000.
- 22 -
LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
Ananda Capital Partners Inc.
The Company and Mr. Strikovsky were named as defendants in a claim for damages and specific performance of an agreement allegedly entered into by the Company and the plaintiff, Ananda Capital Partners, Inc., in April 1999 (the "Agreement"). On July 2, 2001, due to the fact that no defense and/or reply were provided by the Company or Strikovsky, judgment was entered against the Company and Strikovsky in the amount of $725,000. On February 7, 2002, both the Company and Strikovsky filed a motion to vacate the judgment, and on February 27, 2002, the court rejected the motion. The Company filed an appeal that was accepted by the Supreme Court of the State New York with instructions to allow an evidentiary hearing in regard to the defendants claim that the default judgment was entered without proper service of process. The hearing was held on May 22, 2003, but the court has not yet entered its decision. The plaintiff proposed to settle the suit for $250,000, and while the Company was willing to further negotiate a substantially lower amount, in light of the plaintiff's position, the Company decided to reject the proposal. In 2001 the Company established an allowance in the amount of $750,000 to provide for its possible exposure. In light of subsequent developments, the Company decreased the allowance by $500,000 to $250,000, which, in light of the judgment against the Company and the settlement offer proposed, represents a conservative estimate of the probable exposure.
During June 2002, the plaintiff filed a request of enforcement with the District Court of Tel Aviv, Israel, asking the court to enforce the judgment against the Company and Mr. Dov Strikovsky in the amount of $725,000, in Israel.
The Company filed the appropriate papers to bring an appeal to the rejection of the motion to vacate the judgment, in July 2002.
On September 10, 2002, the District Court of Tel Aviv, Israel agreed to grant the Company an extension of thirty days to file its motion to contest the enforcement of the judgment from the date of the Israeli Court's decision regarding the motion to dismiss the enforcement of judgment claim. The Court later denied the Company's motion. In light of the proceedings conducted in this matter in the United States, a hearing as to the substance of the claims has not yet been held, and Company and opposing counsel have agreed, from time to time, to postpone the date of such hearing. Currently, a preliminary hearing in the case is scheduled for March 9, 2004.
See"the Company's Annual Report on Form 20-F Item 8A (1) - Financial Information -Legal Proceedings"
Dov Strikovsky
On September 10 2003, the Company filed suit against Mr. Strikovsky and others in the sum of NIS 3,193,743 (approximately $700,000) due to default under loans extended to Mr. Strikovsky by the Company, as well as other debts related to the sale of the electrical business of the company to company's under Mr. Strikovsky's control. The Company was able to obtain a court order for the seizure of certain notes credited to the defendants by the Municipality of Hod Hasharon.
The response of the defendants to the claim, as well as to the seizure order, has not yet been filed.
Municipality of Hod Hasharon
On May 9, 2001, an agreement was signed between the Company and Bank Hapoalim, Ltd. with respect to the Company's debt to the Bank in the amount of $3,127,000 (the "Bank Agreement"). See"Certain Transactions- Assignment of Bank Debt"above. After the consummation of the Bank Agreement, the Company was informed that the Municipality of Hod Hasharon is delaying the payments due to the Bank. As a consequence, the Company is carrying out negotiation with the Municipality of Hod Hasharon for the repayment of the debt including interest accrued thereon. The legal advisor to the Company, in a letter dated June 6, 2002, wrote that the present negotiations by the lawyers of the Company with the lawyers representing the Municipality of Hod Hasharon can be considered to be legal procedures, and therefore the Bank can withhold proceedings against the Company until November 30 2002. Since then, the B0ank has extended its agreement to withhold proceedings, which has lapsed in May 2003.
- 23 -
On November 20 2003, the Company's subsidiary, Marnetics Ltd., filed suit against the Municipality of Hod Hasharon and its then head of the Engineering Department, in the sum of NIS 10,000,000 (approximately $2.2 million) (for court fee purposes), claiming that the negligence of and/or misrepresentations made by the Municipality at the time of the reverse merger transaction between the Company and Marnetics Ltd., in regard to the Municipality's debt towards the Company, caused Marnetics Ltd. damages of some NIS 24,000,000 (approximately $5.33 million) between the years 2000 and 2002. The defendant's response has not yet been filed.
Demand Letter
On December 4, 2001, Mr. Menachem Reinschmidt, the Active Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Company, received two letters from Advocate Yori Nehushtan on behalf of two shareholders of the Company, Messrs. Yossi Tessler and Lavi Krasni. The letters raised the allegation that the Company's Proxy Statement filed on November 17, 2000, contained false representations regarding the Company's technology. Mr. Reinschmidt and the Company contend that no false representations were given, that such representations were given subject to various risk factors clearly detailed in the Company's Proxy Statement, and that in any event, such representations are protected under the "safe harbor" provisions of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 as forward looking statements under United States securities laws. On September 14, 2001, the shareholders of Marnetics Ltd. approved a resolution to indemnify Mr. Reinschmidt in respect to the demand letter sent by Advocate Yori Nehustan on behalf of Yossi Tessler and Lavie Krasni, in accordance with the provisions and limitations set out in the Israeli Companies Law.
Marot Imaging Israel Ltd.
During March 2003 the Company received letters from the lawyers of Marot Imaging Israel Ltd., the Israeli representative of Getty Images, Inc., alleging that pictures from GETTYIMAGES were incorporated into the Company's internet site without obtaining the copyright permission of the owner, therefore infringing its rights. The Company denied responsibility for the alleged infringement. Upon notification that the images may be infringing rights of a third party, the Company ceased to use the pictures in question and has so notified the agent of Getty Images. Although Marot Imaging made an offer of settlement, the Company decided not to accept the settlement offer. To date no action has been filed by Marot Imaging.
Ohrenstein & Brown
The Company has an outstanding debt of approximately $27,000 to the law firm of Ohernstein & Brown for legal services rendered to the Company in connection with its defense of the Ananda lawsuit.
AVAILABLE INFORMATION
The Company (formerly named Stav Electrical Systems (1994) Ltd.) is subject to certain of the informational requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the rules and regulations promulgated there under and in accordance therewith files reports, proxy statements and other information with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Reports, proxy statements and other information filed by the Company may be inspected and copied at the public reference facilities maintained by the Commission at 450 Fifth Street, N. W., Washington, D. C. 20549. Copies of such information can be obtained by mail from the Public Reference Section of the Commission at 450 Fifth Street, N. W., Washington, D. C. 20549 at prescribed rates. In addition, beginning in July 2001, the Company began filing its reports with the Commission electronically and any reports, proxy statements and other information filed by the Company after such date may also be inspected the Commission's web site atwww.sec.gov.
DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE
The Company's Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2002, is incorporated by reference herein. All documents filed by the Company with the Commission pursuant to the Exchange Act after the date hereof and prior to the date of the General Meeting shall be deemed to be incorporated by reference herein and shall be a part hereof to the extent that a statement contained herein (or in any other subsequently filed document with also is incorporated by reference herein) modifies or supersedes such statement.
- 24 -